Clonally Selected Lines After CRISPR-Cas Editing Are Not Isogenic.

IF 3.7 4区 生物学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Arijit Panda, Milovan Suvakov, Jessica Mariani, Kristen L Drucker, Yohan Park, Yeongjun Jang, Thomas M Kollmeyer, Gobinda Sarkar, Taejeong Bae, Jean J Kim, Wan Hee Yoon, Robert B Jenkins, Flora M Vaccarino, Alexej Abyzov
{"title":"Clonally Selected Lines After CRISPR-Cas Editing Are Not Isogenic.","authors":"Arijit Panda, Milovan Suvakov, Jessica Mariani, Kristen L Drucker, Yohan Park, Yeongjun Jang, Thomas M Kollmeyer, Gobinda Sarkar, Taejeong Bae, Jean J Kim, Wan Hee Yoon, Robert B Jenkins, Flora M Vaccarino, Alexej Abyzov","doi":"10.1089/crispr.2022.0050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The CRISPR-Cas9 system has enabled researchers to precisely modify/edit the sequence of a genome. A typical editing experiment consists of two steps: (1) editing cultured cells; (2) cell cloning and selection of clones with and without intended edit, presumed to be isogenic. The application of CRISPR-Cas9 system may result in off-target edits, whereas cloning will reveal culture-acquired mutations. We analyzed the extent of the former and the latter by whole genome sequencing in three experiments involving separate genomic loci and conducted by three independent laboratories. In all experiments we hardly found any off-target edits, whereas detecting hundreds to thousands of single nucleotide mutations unique to each clone after relatively short culture of 10-20 passages. Notably, clones also differed in copy number alterations (CNAs) that were several kb to several mb in size and represented the largest source of genomic divergence among clones. We suggest that screening of clones for mutations and CNAs acquired in culture is a necessary step to allow correct interpretation of DNA editing experiments. Furthermore, since culture associated mutations are inevitable, we propose that experiments involving derivation of clonal lines should compare a mix of multiple unedited lines and a mix of multiple edited lines.</p>","PeriodicalId":54232,"journal":{"name":"CRISPR Journal","volume":"6 2","pages":"176-182"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123805/pdf/crispr.2022.0050.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CRISPR Journal","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2022.0050","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has enabled researchers to precisely modify/edit the sequence of a genome. A typical editing experiment consists of two steps: (1) editing cultured cells; (2) cell cloning and selection of clones with and without intended edit, presumed to be isogenic. The application of CRISPR-Cas9 system may result in off-target edits, whereas cloning will reveal culture-acquired mutations. We analyzed the extent of the former and the latter by whole genome sequencing in three experiments involving separate genomic loci and conducted by three independent laboratories. In all experiments we hardly found any off-target edits, whereas detecting hundreds to thousands of single nucleotide mutations unique to each clone after relatively short culture of 10-20 passages. Notably, clones also differed in copy number alterations (CNAs) that were several kb to several mb in size and represented the largest source of genomic divergence among clones. We suggest that screening of clones for mutations and CNAs acquired in culture is a necessary step to allow correct interpretation of DNA editing experiments. Furthermore, since culture associated mutations are inevitable, we propose that experiments involving derivation of clonal lines should compare a mix of multiple unedited lines and a mix of multiple edited lines.

经过CRISPR-Cas编辑的克隆选择系不是等基因的。
CRISPR-Cas9系统使研究人员能够精确地修改/编辑基因组序列。典型的编辑实验包括两个步骤:(1)编辑培养细胞;(二)假定为等基因的细胞克隆和克隆选择。CRISPR-Cas9系统的应用可能导致脱靶编辑,而克隆将揭示培养获得性突变。我们在三个独立的实验室进行了三个涉及单独基因组位点的全基因组测序实验,分析了前者和后者的程度。在所有的实验中,我们几乎没有发现任何脱靶编辑,而在相对较短的10-20代培养后,检测到每个克隆特有的数百到数千个单核苷酸突变。值得注意的是,克隆在拷贝数改变(CNAs)上也存在差异,CNAs的大小在几kb到几mb之间,这是克隆之间基因组差异的最大来源。我们建议筛选突变克隆和培养中获得的CNAs是允许正确解释DNA编辑实验的必要步骤。此外,由于培养相关的突变是不可避免的,我们建议涉及克隆系衍生的实验应该比较多个未编辑的系和多个编辑的系的混合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CRISPR Journal
CRISPR Journal Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biotechnology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.70%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: In recognition of this extraordinary scientific and technological era, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers recently announced the creation of The CRISPR Journal -- an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal publishing outstanding research on the myriad applications and underlying technology of CRISPR. Debuting in 2018, The CRISPR Journal will be published online and in print with flexible open access options, providing a high-profile venue for groundbreaking research, as well as lively and provocative commentary, analysis, and debate. The CRISPR Journal adds an exciting and dynamic component to the Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. portfolio, which includes GEN (Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News) and more than 80 leading peer-reviewed journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信